This article deals with some legal instruments of protection of the right of privacy against the lawless tapping. The first one is the legal regulation of the constant control of the tapping in the criminal procedure that may be realized by the judged, not only by the department of Police Corp that provides the tapping. The second one is informing of the tapped person about its tapping that is the inevitable assumption of legal defence against its lawless tapping and completely absents in the Protection against Tapping Act. This is the reason of its conflict with the Convention and the judicature of European Court that may be deleted by the regulation of informing the tapped person about its tapping. In this article the reasoning of decisions is also analysed, by which the tapping is ruled - the order and the permission. According to the judicature of Constitutional Court, both of them must be reasoned. Despite of it the reasoning of decisions Hrubala writes that if the judged devised to the application for permission (reasoned exhaustively), it would not has negative effect for rights of tapped person. He argues that the necessity to justify the permission explicitly results neither from the Protection against Tapping Act nor the judicature of European Court. Besides of it such a decision would be also reviewable and conformable with the judicature of the Constitutional Court, because decisions, which examined this court, were not - in contrary with it - reviewable. That means his mentioned advancement does not menace any basic right of tapped person, therefore it may be consented.
Financed by the National Centre for Research and Development under grant No. SP/I/1/77065/10 by the strategic scientific research and experimental development program:
SYNAT - “Interdisciplinary System for Interactive Scientific and Scientific-Technical Information”.